Layout-aware Diagnosis Leads to Efficient and Effective Physical Failure Analysis

Logic diagnosis analyzes scan test failures and produces a list of potential defect locations and types. This information is often used as a starting point for a detailed physical failure analysis (PFA) process that locates the actual physical defect. One important criterion that dictates whether PFA can be performed on a certain die is the physical area of the die over which the potential defect locations reported by diagnosis are spread. While logic diagnosis works with a logic-level abstraction of the design, in this paper we describe the use of additional design layout information during diagnosis to lead to better localization of defects and reduce the area over which potential defect locations are spread. This directly results in more die becoming suitable for PFA. We demonstrate the effectiveness of such “layout-aware” diagnosis for PFA using an industrial case study in which several die from two wafers were diagnosed and 61% and 78% more die became suitable for PFA using layout-aware diagnosis.

[1]  J.A. Waicukauski,et al.  Failure diagnosis of structured VLSI , 1989, IEEE Design & Test of Computers.

[2]  Tracy Larrabee,et al.  Beyond the byzantine generals: unexpected behavior and bridging fault diagnosis , 1996, Proceedings International Test Conference 1996. Test and Design Validity.

[3]  Srikanth Venkataraman,et al.  POIROT: a logic fault diagnosis tool and its applications , 2000, Proceedings International Test Conference 2000 (IEEE Cat. No.00CH37159).

[4]  Elizabeth M. Rudnick,et al.  Bridge fault diagnosis using stuck-at fault simulation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[5]  Srikanth Venkataraman,et al.  A technique for logic fault diagnosis of interconnect open defects , 2000, Proceedings 18th IEEE VLSI Test Symposium.

[6]  Leendert M. Huisman,et al.  Diagnosing combinational logic designs using the single location at-a-time (SLAT) paradigm , 2001, Proceedings International Test Conference 2001 (Cat. No.01CH37260).

[7]  Masahiro Takakura,et al.  A persistent diagnostic technique for unstable defects , 2002, Proceedings. International Test Conference.

[8]  Hiroshi Takahashi,et al.  Incremental diagnosis of multiple open-interconnects , 2002, Proceedings. International Test Conference.

[9]  Sudhakar M. Reddy,et al.  Bridge Defect Diagnosis with Physical Information , 2005, 14th Asian Test Symposium (ATS'05).

[10]  S.M. Reddy,et al.  Interconnect Open Defect Diagnosis with Physical Information , 2006, 2006 15th Asian Test Symposium.

[11]  Sudhakar M. Reddy,et al.  On methods to improve location based logic diagnosis , 2006, 19th International Conference on VLSI Design held jointly with 5th International Conference on Embedded Systems Design (VLSID'06).

[12]  R. D. Blanton,et al.  Precise failure localization using automated layout analysis of diagnosis candidates , 2008, 2008 45th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[13]  Shi-Yu Huang,et al.  Layout-Based Defect-Driven Diagnosis for Intracell Bridging Defects , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems.